British Educational Research Journal

Vol. 44, No. 6, December 2018, pp. 1120–1137

DOI: 10.1002/berj.3483

Framing learning entanglement in

innovative learning spaces: Connecting
theory, design and practice
Lucila Carvalhoa,* and Pippa Yeomanb
a
Institute of Education, Massey University, New Zealand; bSchool of Education and Social
Work, The University of Sydney, Australia

Innovative learning spaces have emerged in response to the influx of educational technologies and
new social practices associated with twenty-first-century learning. Whilst dominant narratives of
change often suggest that alterations in the designed environment for learning will result in changed
practice, on the ground educators are struggling to align their pedagogical models with new spaces
for learning, direct instruction is still common, and technologically deterministic narratives mask a
failure to engage with the materiality of learning. This article argues for a non-deterministic theory
of things in educational research and calls for a deeper understanding of the flows of matter, infor-
mation and human–thing dependence, which will render visible the heterogeneous entanglements
characteristic of innovative spaces for learning. It highlights that educational designers (e.g. teach-
ers, space planners, architects, instructional designers) are in pressing need of analytical tools cap-
able of supporting their work in ways that promote correspondence between (a) pedagogy, place
and people and (b) theory, design and practice. In response, we introduce an analytical approach to
framing learning entanglement that accounts for the artefacts, resources and tools available to learn-
ers; the choice of tasks and pedagogical models and the social roles and divisions of labour govern-
ing any given learning situation. Finally, we practically demonstrate how this approach aids in
identifying correspondence or dissonance across dimensions of design and scale levels, in both the
analysis and design of complex environments for learning.

Keywords: design for learning; educational design; entanglement; innovative learning spaces

Introduction
Innovative learning spaces emerged in response to the influx of educational technolo-
gies and new social practices associated with increasingly participatory forms of learn-
ing. Using them has resulted in calls for better alignment between the design of
educational environments and transformation in school and university curricula (Woolner,
2010; Blackmore et al., 2011; Leiringer & Cardellino, 2011; OECD, 2013; Cardel-
lino et al., 2017; Woolner et al., 2018). However, many educators are struggling to
align their pedagogical models with these new spaces for learning (Beetham &
Sharpe, 2013; Scott, 2015; Singh & Hassan, 2017). Despite widespread recognition
that ‘the “transmission” or lecture model is highly ineffective for teaching twenty-first

*Corresponding author. Institute of Education, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Massey
University, Private Bag 102 904, North Shore, Auckland 0745, New Zealand. E-mail: l.carvalho@
massey.ac.nz; Twitter: @lucila_fdc

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

 Framing learning entanglement in innovative learning spaces 1121

century competencies and skills’ (Scott, 2015, p. 1), direct instruction, inauthentic
assessment and rote learning are still common across many contexts, although these
practices are not specific to particular sectors or subject areas. For example, in uni-
versities, lectures are still common in the early stages of undergraduate courses, and
in schools some subject areas are more likely than others to adopt project-based or
inquiry-based approaches. What is more, deterministic accounts of tools and spaces
for learning tend to focus on identifying generic and decontextualised properties of
tools or spaces, without considering the qualities of the objects themselves, and how
these, in turn, may influence people, their values and purposeful action.
In this article, we argue that those involved in educational design (e.g. teachers, space
planners, architects, instructional designers) need analytical tools capable of increasing
the correspondence between (a) pedagogy, place and people and (b) theory, design and
practice. When we speak of correspondence, we draw on the work of Tim Ingold
(2013), who contrasts interaction with correspondence, which he illustrates with a sim-
ple sketch: two fixed points with an arrow between them—representing interaction—
and two lines issuing from each of these points that flex in response to movement in the
other—representing correspondence. Understanding how we use this term is important
for two reasons. First, our work is deeply rooted in material accounts of situated learn-
ing activity, which means we are not satisfied by descriptions of learning in which the
role of materials is either absent or overly deterministic. Second, our aim is to under-
stand the learning whole in action, which means we are always concerned with how
changes in one aspect of the learning environment are expressed in another.
Materials, once unquestioningly described as unchanging, are now more often
described as fluid. But this general state of flux is not new. Things (objects, thoughts,
practices) and people have always been subject to cycles of growth and decay (Hod-
der, 2012, 2014). What is new is the rate at which they change, which has altered our
perception of their relative stability (Thomas & Brown, 2011; Sewlyn, 2014). It is
therefore not surprising that many of these new things have been termed disruptors,
because they have radically reordered how we make our way in the world—whether
working, travelling, shopping, banking, reading, writing, resting, staying connected,
learning to stay healthy, learning to solve problems or just learning to muddle
through. What is more, these alterations in daily life are not neutral. They reveal val-
ues and highlight the challenges associated with acting in accordance with these val-
ues. This values-based underpinning of design is often overlooked when it comes to
educational design—or design for learning—and this makes bridging the theory–
praxis divide difficult (Goodyear et al., 2006). Our aim, when working with educa-
tional designers, is to support the articulation of a shared epistemology of learning
and develop creative ways of keeping it visible through the design process, in the final
design, and in ongoing teaching and learning practice.
Learning has traditionally been described in terms of a change in behaviour or cog-
nitive processes, with a focus on demonstrating a unidirectional transfer of a stable
body of knowledge. However, this definition no longer reflects what is known about
how people learn, nor does it reveal the complexity of orchestrating or navigating the
diverse assemblage of tools, tasks and people required to demonstrate knowledgeable
action in the world. In calling for a richer conceptual repertoire, S€alj€ o (2009) high-
lights the role of time, situatedness and reciprocity between individuals and cultural

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

1122 L. Carvalho and P. Yeoman

practices in learning. New theories of learning—such as embodied or extended

cognition (Clark, 2011)—build on the situated nature of learning (Lave & Wenger,
1991), emphasising the value of learning through ‘doing’ in the company of others
(Wenger, 1999), and acknowledge both the sociocultural (Vygotsky, 1978) and
sociomaterial (Sørensen, 2009; Fenwick et al., 2011) nature of learning. S€alj€ o (2009)
suggests that the value of learning theory lies in its explanatory power relative to a set
of issues, and not in its ability to reflect a particular view of the world. Whilst we
heartily agree with the first sentiment, our commitment to situated ways of knowing
leads us to challenge the second. Theories shape our thinking—they are tools for
thinking—but our thinking is also profoundly shaped by our view of the world or
what we value.
In this article, we introduce an analytical approach to framing learning entangle-
ment that combines work from networked learning (Goodyear & Carvalho, 2014;
Yeoman, 2015, 2018), architecture (Alexander et al., 1977) and archaeology (Hod-
der, 2012, 2014). We take an activity-centred approach that can best be described in
ecological terms. That is, our focus is on the learning whole (people, place and peda-
gogy) and our aim is to support the analysis and design of complex networked learn-
ing environments. As such, we conceptualise learning as an emergent phenomenon
and it is therefore fitting that we start by defining emergence. Alexander’s (2002)
analogy of the whirlpool is helpful in this regard. In describing the whirlpool, he notes
that it is not an object, but a momentary vortex induced by the passage of water
through a particular configuration of riverbed, riverbanks and rocks. That is, the vor-
tex did not exist along with the riverbed, riverbanks and rocks but was induced in the
action of the whole. In exploring learning activity, through the lens of emergence, we
face two challenges: first, to identify the elements—the equivalent of the riverbed,
riverbanks and rocks; second, to understand how their properties and spatial configu-
ration give rise to the emergent phenomenon we wish to stimulate.
This article starts with a brief overview of the learning theories that inform our work,
followed by a review of some of the frameworks currently used to model the learning
landscape and an introduction to two analytical tools—the activity-centred analysis and
design (ACAD) framework (Goodyear & Carvalho, 2014) and the ACAD wireframe
(Yeoman, 2015, 2018). Having highlighted the importance of gaining a deeper appreci-
ation of the qualities and temporalities of material and digital elements of innovative
learning spaces, we draw on Hodder’s (2012) theory of entanglement to extend the
analytical power of the ACAD framework and wireframe, before demonstrating the
power of this approach by using it to analyse a vignette from an ethnographic study con-
ducted in an innovative Kindergarten to Year 12 school (Yeoman, 2015). In conclu-
sion, we argue that framing learning entanglement in this way supports the
identification of elements open to design and increases correspondence across scale
levels and dimensions of design—bringing pedagogy, place and people together—
through the enactment of knowledgeable action in the process of designing for learning.

Theoretical lenses: Framing learning activity

Learning theories, such as distributed and embodied cognition (Hutchins, 1995;
Clark, 2011), inform our understanding of the learning landscape. In distributed

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

 Framing learning entanglement in innovative learning spaces 1123

cognition, cognition emerges through interaction with a range of distributed ele-

ments in a system (Hutchins, 1995). Minds are understood as extended outwards,
not contained within brains or bodies, with artefacts playing a significant role in
reasoning processes. From this perspective, minds and the environment are recast
as a system that connects bodies, minds and technologies (Clark, 2011; Kirsh,
2013). People’s conceptions and beliefs are therefore grounded in their percep-
tual-action experiences with artefacts, and so ‘the more we have tool mediated
experiences the more our understanding of the world is situated in the way we
interact through tools’ (Kirsh, 2013, p. 3:3). Essentially, it is not only cognition
that influences our behaviour, but our perceptual system as well. Both cognition
and perception work as a system to find alignment between our actions and our
predictions about the environment, which continuously co-evolve (Markauskaite &
Goodyear, 2017). This systemic view of cognition has important ramifications for
design and learning, since ‘in building our physical and social worlds, we build (or
rather, we massively reconfigure) our minds and capacities of thought and reason’
(Clark, 2011, p. xxviii).
We acknowledge learning as epistemically, physically and socially situated and
foreground the social nature of knowledge through the notion of ‘networks’. Net-
worked learning stresses the importance of collaboration and participation in fos-
tering co-creation and supporting people’s engagement in knowledge-building
processes. Networked learning is about connections—between people and
resources, often promoted via technology (Goodyear et al., 2004). Moreover,
learning—understood as sustained or persistent change in behaviour based on
experience, as distinct from development or maturation (Illeris, 2009)—is
extended to include change that is incidental, unintended and sometimes not
directly visible (Damsßa et al., 2010). Bringing these learning theories together with
the notion of emergence and drawing on the work of Ingold (2011, 2012, 2013),
we offer a description of learning that emphasises the role of perception in learn-
ing or in developing sensitivity to cues in the environment and a corresponding
ability to match one’s actions to alterations in the environment without disrupting
the flow of one’s actions. We argue that this sensitivity is crucial, in conjunction
with an appreciation for different forms of knowledge and ways of knowing, in
supporting knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge (Markauskaite &
Goodyear, 2017) in a world that is perpetually in motion.
Technological innovations alter our social practices (Thomas & Brown, 2011).
These alterations in practice have implications for how we perceive, use and equip
physical spaces for knowledge-oriented activity. Acknowledging this is vital, because
learners need opportunities to practice and refine their ability to collaborate and
maintain connections in networked structures, something many traditional pedagogi-
cal approaches are ill-equipped to support. This is concerning, given the types of chal-
lenges they will face upon entering the work force, including energy–water–land
issues, income–health–education inequality, globalisation and human migration.
Addressing these issues will require both individual insight and aggregated perspec-
tives from a range of disciplines. As such, digital fluency, innovation, creativity and
collaboration are more than the touchstones of current thinking, they are necessary
for making our way in a world that is perpetually in motion (Gatt & Ingold, 2013).

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

1124 L. Carvalho and P. Yeoman

Human knowledge and interaction cannot be divorced from the world. To do so is to

study a disembodied intelligence, one that is artificial, unreal, and uncharacteristic of
actual behaviour. What really matters is the situation and the parts people play. One can-
not look at just the situation, or just the environment, or just the person: To do so is to
destroy the very phenomenon of interest. (Norman, 1993, p. 4)

In this instance, the phenomenon—or spatiotemporal object of our attention—is

learning activity. What learners actually do at learntime (when learning activity
unfolds) is what matters most, not what educators plan in advance for them to do.
Educational design needs to be understood as related to learners’ activity—because
their plans may influence but do not entirely determine what learners will do, as
learners have agency to reconfigure what is proposed or reshape their learning envi-
rons. This is a subtle but important difference, which is based on our understanding
of learning activity as an emergent phenomenon. This way of conceptualising learning
relies on the ability to distinguish between that which is open to alteration through
design, and that which is not. Our focus is on understanding how ‘designable ele-
ments’ can be said to support ‘emergent phenomena’ in learning. As the demands
and complexity of how and where we learn have increased, there have been attempts
to map the learning landscape—that is to say, we are not without cartographers.

Modelling the learning landscape

There are conceptual models that offer stylistic representations of the constituent
parts of learning environments, such as the school climate model (Owens & Valesky,
2007). Some of these models begin to describe relational elements, such as the nested
nature of designed environments for learning—from the classroom to the city (Nord-
quist & Laing, 2015). Other models show how new technologies are shaping spaces
for learning, such as Radcliffe’s (2009) pedagogy–space–technology (PST) frame-
work, and how different modalities of learning map to particular communities of
learners and different degrees of formality in the built environment, such as Wilson’s
(2009) places for learning spectrum. Each of these representations attempts to scaf-
fold the exploration of a specific subset of challenges. The school climate model
(Owens & Valesky, 2007) used by Gislason (2009) is derived from organisational the-
ory and offers visual cues to consider the needs of different stakeholders. The net-
worked learning landscape model (Nordquist & Laing, 2015) reminds designers that
learning is never contained within a single set of four walls, and the PST framework
(Radcliffe, 2009) aids in designing, embedding and extending the built environment
for learning through the use of new technologies. Each aims to map the learning
whole, but most fail to clearly articulate how their epistemology of learning shapes
their representation or model.
Some of the challenges associated with creating representations of thought include
how one theorises the elements, the relations between the elements and the degree to
which proximity on the page represents proximity or coherence on the ground. A
pyramid suggests that what is represented at one level is necessary for the next level
up, which inadvertently communicates causal relationships. A Venn diagram asks
only that you name the three or four circles and work towards the point of maximal
overlap, which obviates the need to justify or theorise the relations between the

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

 Framing learning entanglement in innovative learning spaces 1125

categories. A matrix offers cross-mapping and scale levels but cannot account for
time, and a flow chart or process map can be subject to the challenges associated with
causality, theorisation and time.
Despite these challenges, in our work we chose to use a framework and a derivative
grid for representation to guide both the analysis and design of complex learning envi-
ronments. This choice is a function of our commitment to producing knowledge that
is actionable. The etymology of frame is ‘framian’ (to be useful or make ready for
use), and a framework is defined as a basic structure underlying a system, concept or
text (Oxford English Dictionary online). As such, we present the activity-centred analy-
sis and design framework (Goodyear & Carvalho, 2014) with the aim of illustrating
both its explanatory power and its ability to support design for learning by connecting
learning activity to the designable elements of any learning situation.

Framing learning entanglement

The clearly articulated heart of ACAD is emergent learning activity—what people
actually do, their thoughts and feelings—which cannot be predicted in advance.
Drawing on an extended body of learning theories, including embodied and dis-
tributed cognition, ACAD foregrounds how activity is shaped by tools, tasks and
social arrangements (Goodyear & Carvalho, 2014), designed in advance but variously
enrolled in activity at learntime. In framing this complexity, ACAD acknowledges
that learning is socially, physically and epistemically situated. There are four struc-
tural dimensions to the ACAD framework (Figure 1); three are open to alteration
through design and the fourth is not. This is an important distinction to hold onto,
because it is the link through which we can begin the task of connecting emergent
learning activity to designable elements of the learning environment.
Building on the analytical concepts of the ACAD framework (Goodyear & Car-
valho, 2014), in combination with Goodyear’s (1999) earlier notions of pedagogical
frameworks and the work on pattern languages by Alexander et al. (1977), we now
turn to the ACAD wireframe (Yeoman, 2015, 2018). A wireframe is usually an una-
dorned outline used by interface designers to map elements of design to functionality
before prototyping. The single-view outline invites designers to consider the des-
ignable element to be placed in each blank space, how this selection relates to the
whole and how it supports valued learning activity. Wireframes are shareable repre-
sentations that can be annotated and revised by both designers and users. The act of
sharing them with users has been shown to improve the quality of feedback by using
cognitive walk-throughs (Roth et al., 2016), and developing them in partnership with
users increases acceptance and use of the final design (Morson, 2014). The ACAD
wireframe provides a grid within which one builds a representation, a single view of
the designable elements of any learning ecology (Table 1). The first three dimensions
of design (as per the ACAD framework) are represented from left to right (set, epis-
temic and social) and the scale levels across which they operate (macro, meso and
micro) from top to bottom. The shorthand used for the scale levels (macro, meso,
micro) is useful, but for a deeper understanding of the distinctions between these
levels we draw on Alexander et al.’s (1977) notation: region (macro), shape (meso)
and detail (micro).

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

1126 L. Carvalho and P. Yeoman

Figure 1. The ACAD framework [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

The work of Alexander et al. (1977) originated in the field of architecture where,
through the pairing of recurrent architectural problems with potential solutions, they
created what they referred to as design patterns. Each pattern contains a written nar-
rative of a single problem-solution, and a rationale and description of one way to
address the issue of concern. Together, a collection of patterns forms a pattern lan-
guage. In laying out their pattern language, Alexander et al. (1977) started with the
global, because these are the patterns that conceptually order scale, shape and con-
nection. These Level I (macro) patterns frame the broad context for the design and
are built through the cumulative acts of a community over time. Level II (meso) pat-
terns detail the shape or structure of things, or groups of things, and the spaces
between them. Level III (micro) patterns provide the details for Level II patterns and
can be built in a single act by an individual.
In Table 1, under the header for each dimension of design is a prompt to articulate
a specific high-level philosophy of learning, with particular reference to that

Table 1. The ACAD wireframe

Set design Epistemic design Social design

High-level philosophy Learning is. . . Learning is. . . Learning is. . .

Macro—global Level I Buildings and Stakeholder intentions Organisational forms
patterns technology
Meso—structure Level II Allocation and use of Curriculum Community
patterns space
Micro—details Level III Artefacts, tools and Selection, sequence Roles and divisions of
patterns texts and pace labour

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

 Framing learning entanglement in innovative learning spaces 1127

dimension of design. This part of the wireframe enacts ideas from the pedagogical
framework proposed by Goodyear (1999), where correspondence between philoso-
phy, high-level pedagogy, strategy and tactics is discussed. The positioning of the
high-level philosophy in the first cells of the ACAD wireframe is intentional and
addresses something that is often overlooked in educational design work: the fact that
design is inherently value-based. Unless this is explicitly addressed, it can be difficult
to bridge the theory–praxis divide (Goodyear et al., 2006). This is particularly rele-
vant when working with heterogeneous teams of educational designers, including a
range of teachers, working alongside space planners, instructional and architectural
designers and others.
Our intention is to support correspondence between dimensions of design (left to
right) and scale levels (top to bottom). However, reaching consensus about a shared
epistemology of learning in these diverse teams is the crucial first step, and failing to
do so often results in dissonance across scale levels and/or dimensions of design. A
common example of this type of dissonance arises when, instead of clearly articulating
epistemologies of learning upfront, project user groups start with aspirational visions
of newness (macro-epistemic) that drive design briefs for innovative buildings and
technology (macro-set) which, if enacted in the presence of hierarchical organisa-
tional forms (macro-social), can result in aesthetically pleasing environments that
speak of newness but fail to give rise to the desired quality of learning activity. That is,
when working towards coherence, everything is on the table, and a desire for collabo-
ration and a need for compliance are often at the heart of dissonance. We argue that
this challenge can be addressed through an exploration of the material properties of
the designed environment and the quality of learning activity they support.
At its simplest, dissonance is easy to identify when imagining a project-based tuto-
rial held in a raked lecture theatre for 250 people, or a lecture delivered in a flat-floor
computer lab for 120 people. But face-to-face learning activity is increasingly less
homogeneous. It is not difficult to imagine the need to switch between periods of indi-
vidual reflection, whole-group presentation, small-group bench work, individual/
group computer use and face-to-face collaboration, without having to allocate chunks
of time for students to move between venues. Increasing demand for access to learn-
ing environments characterised by diverse space typologies highlights the importance
of understanding how lines of sight, acoustics, group orientation and a shared internal
or external focus of attention can be said to support valued learning activity.
In summary, the ACAD wireframe (Yeoman, 2015, 2018) is a representational tool
for thinking about where and how we learn. It offers a simple outline that calls for a
clear articulation of learning theory and directs attention to those elements of any
learning situation that are open to alteration through design, across multiple scale
levels. On a practical level, it acts as a visual aid to investigate a single element of one
dimension, without losing sight of the learning whole. At a theoretical level it acts as a
translation device (Bernstein, 2000) that helps designers to operationalise the concep-
tual underpinnings of the ACAD framework (Goodyear & Carvalho, 2014), the peda-
gogical framework (Goodyear, 1999) and Alexander et al.’s (1977) pattern language.
Having examined the theoretical evolution of this approach and how the properties
and spatial configuration of this tool support a certain quality of design activity—be it
analysis of what is or design of what is to come—in the next section, we extend the

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

1128 L. Carvalho and P. Yeoman

reach of this approach by exploring the role of materials and the entanglement of
humans and things in activity, before illustrating the power of our approach in action.

Representing entanglement
People’s interactions with tools are not neutral; they are influenced by goals and
guided by implicit suggestions embedded in the design of tools that support percep-
tion, thought and action. But to stop at affordance—what this tool can do for me—is
to perpetuate what Ingold (2011) refers to as object blindness or what Devall and Ses-
sions (1985) refer to as a shallow ecological perspective. Materials are neither mute
nor inert; their properties influence the quality of any interaction, and this results in
complex webs of (enabling) dependence and (constraining) dependency between
humans and things (Hodder, 2012). This is important when it comes to design for
learning, because if we subscribe to situative and embodied theories of learning, then
we need good ways of theorising how the properties of a particular tool can be said to
support a desired quality of learning activity. What is more, it is not only learners who
are influenced by the properties and spatial configurations of the tools available to
them. Educational designers are subject to similar influences. These ideas are founda-
tional to our research, which involves creating tangible analytical tools to facilitate the
work of educational designers.
We draw on perspectives peripheral to education to help us understand what it
really means to say that learning is situated, embodied and distributed. After all,
archaeologists and anthropologists have well-established methods for studying the
role of tools in individual and collective human activity. Describing the efforts of
others to examine the increasing complexity of human life in terms of networks,
meshes, mixes, chains and engagements, Hodder (2014) observes a tendency for
archaeologists to speak in terms of the enchainment of humans and things, and for
sociologists to speak of interpersonal relations. In contrast, those working under the
banner of actor–network theory (Latour, 1988; Knorr Cetina, 1999; Law, 2002)
reveal how things—such as engines, measuring instruments and laboratory probes—
are enrolled in the structuring of social relations. This work has affected a widespread
shift towards relationality more generally (Law & Hassard, 1999; Latour, 2007). As a
consequence, the dualisms of agency and structure, human and non-human, knowl-
edge and power, before and after, material and social are no longer taken as given or
fixed, but as the effects or outcomes of assemblages. This shift has been so marked
that ‘it is now accepted that human existence and social life depend on material things
and are entangled with them: humans and things are relationally produced’ (Hodder,
2014, p. 19). However, both Hodder (2012, 2014) and Ingold (2011, 2012) remain
critical of purely relational approaches, because such approaches often demonstrate a
cultivated disinterest in the very things they study, their relations to other things and
the ecologies of things within which they exist and function. That is, many of these
relational approaches to materiality work within a shallow or use-value notion of eco-
logical or systems thinking. Rather than networks or meshworks, Hodder (2012) pro-
poses a dialectical tension between enabling dependence and constraining
dependency, resulting in what he calls sticky entrapment—a state in which choices,
once made, limit the range of subsequent opportunities for future action. This sticky

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

 Framing learning entanglement in innovative learning spaces 1129

entrapment is a function of asymmetrical relations between humans and things, and

it is this relational dependence that is at the heart of Hodder’s (2012, p. 217) theory
of entanglement, which can be summarised as follows:
Entanglement + fittingness + conjunctural event ? problem ? fixing ? selection
? E0 (total entanglement)

In summary, entanglement starts with the dialectic between (enabling) dependence

and (constraining) dependency, between humans and things, where the sum of all
dependences between humans (H) and things (T) in their many forms (HT, TT,
TH, HH) is described as giving rise to entanglement. Fittingness is described, not
only in terms of function or affordance, but also in terms of fit or the coherence of the
whole. The centrality of time, and the effects of order and sequence, are acknowl-
edged in human–thing entanglements. Combinations of circumstances give rise to
conjunctural events, which create problems that require fixing, and solutions are
selected from what is to hand that is contextually appropriate, resulting in an alter-
ation to the entanglement of the whole.
Hodder’s (2012) theory has far broader application than in archaeology alone. The
‘foregrounding of material stuff, not just as material meanings and social processes
but also as matter that affects us, is a key part of an adequate social theory’ (Hodder,
2012, p. 211). Oliver (2013) makes a case for non-deterministic theories of technol-
ogy in educational research. We agree, but argue for a broader conceptualisation of
materials in learning, noting that materials do not determine human action either by
material necessity or practical convention. But in focusing on flows of matter, energy,
information and human–thing dependences, one renders visible entanglements that
are heterogeneous and not materially determinative. Moreover, having untangled our
small bit of the world, we should always remember the intention is not to pull things
apart but to ‘explore entanglement itself, engaging in thick, rich, contextual analysis’
(Hodder, 2012, p. 218).
Networked learning involves multi-layered assemblages of artefacts, tools, places,
ideas and people (Carvalho & Goodyear, 2014) and networks are, by their very defini-
tion, relational. In what follows we illustrate how the ACAD framework and wire-
frame, in combination with Hodder’s (2012) theory of entanglement, supports
analysis and design for learning in the twenty-first century. We start with a rich
description of a moment of learning activity before analysing it in two moves. In the
first, we use the ACAD wireframe to scaffold our description; in the second, we trace
learning entanglement using Hodder’s (2012) theory of entanglement.

Framing a moment of learning activity: Theory in action

The vignette presented below is taken from an ethnographic study (Yeoman, 2015)
conducted in an innovative Kindergarten to Year 12 school in Sydney, Australia. The
fieldwork for this study was carried out over the course of a year and involved
549 hours of observation in open Year 5 and Year 6 learning space that was home to
181 students and their team of seven teachers. Whilst this moment is certainly
remarkable, it shares many of the distinctive qualities characteristic of learning in this
place: a measured pace, acceptance of difference, appropriate levels of support and

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

1130 L. Carvalho and P. Yeoman

independence, a willingness to reach or dig deep, and respect for tools that did not
limit their appropriation in creative teaching and learning practice.
A lesson in 24-hour time. It’s the end of a two-week numeracy cycle. This means con-
cepts have been presented, set work has been completed, and most are working indepen-
dently on extension tasks selected from their online learning environment. To my left, Ms
Talbot is working with a small group of eight children still struggling with the concept of
24-hour time. She gets them up on their feet in pairs and asks each to describe what they
would be doing at x am and x pm respectively. The pairs get side tracked. Their linear
arrangement leads to confusion about where morning ends and night begins, and they are
more interested in talking about variations in bedtime than they are about the distinction
between 8 am and 8 pm. She thanks them, sits back down and waits for them to settle.
Looking from the students seated in front of her, towards her Caddie (portable storage) in
the corner, it appears she wants to fetch something but doesn’t. Following her gaze, I see
that Ms Collier is talking to a student who is visibly upset and they are standing alongside
the Caddie. Turning back, I see Ms Talbot is biting her lip and I feel sorry for her. Not for
want of trying, this group has made little progress. Remarkably undaunted, she stands and
walks across the carpet to the wall behind me, where she helps herself to the clock. Armed
with the clock and three whiteboard markers, she sits down amongst the group and slowly
makes her way around the perimeter writing the ‘missing’ 24-hour equivalent at each hour
marker (see Figure 2). Visibly caught up in the moment, the group is sharply focused as
they annotate this newly inscribed clock face with actions relating to either the 12 or 24-
hour time. After a time, she cleans the clock and writes four questions across the centre,
the students quietly answer them in their workbooks. Once they are finished, she asks dif-
ferent individuals the 24-hour time at which they do each of these things. This time they
are less distracted by discrepancies in individual routines and are clearly engaged with the
mechanics of calculating the 24-hour equivalent of each response. The lesson comes to an
end. It is recess. The clock is placed face up on an ottoman and as students from other
groups make their way out they pause to have a look, consider the current time in 24-hour
time, and move on. The clock sits there for a number of days before it is cleaned and
returned to its home on the wall, without any fuss. (pp. 306–310)

To demonstrate how the ACAD framework and wireframe help to (a) identify ele-
ments of design that are open to alteration and (b) explore how their properties and
spatial configurations give rise to emergent learning activity, we completed Table 2
based on the moment described in the vignette. Completing the entire grid is a form
of discipline. One’s analysis may focus on a very specific question at the macro-social
level, but taking the time to add something to each cell honours a commitment to

Figure 2. A lesson in 24-hour time [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

 Framing learning entanglement in innovative learning spaces 1131

Table 2. The ACAD wireframe in action

Set design Epistemic design Social design

High-level Learning is physically Learning is supported Learning is socially

philosophy situated
Macro— Open-plan learning A strong commitment to
global environment designed to
Level I flexibly accommodate
patterns 180 Year 5 & 6 students
and seven teachers,
supported by mobile
access to an online
learning management
system via personal login
Meso— The space was shared by The curriculum for each
structure all (180) and allocated
Level II according to activity type
patterns and learning needs. In
this instance the teacher
was sitting with her
students in a sparsely
furnished, but carpeted,
informal space
Micro— This group had viewed Numeracy was presented
details group presentations,
Level III used online resources
patterns and workbooks, and
were now using their
bodies, the face of an
analogue wall clock and
whiteboard markers to
understand how to
calculate 24-hour time
through knowledge- situated
oriented activity
A distributed style of
research-based practice, leadership, including a
team teaching and a mix principal and senior
of individual and group leadership team of nine,
project work driven by each of whom was
interest responsible for a project
or area of responsibility
that was of particular
interest to them.
Students enjoyed similar
interest-based
opportunities and
structures
The team of seven
term was designed as a responsible for this
thematic whole, within community was led by a
which literacy and key member of staff, but
numeracy were roles and responsibilities
presented by week and were shared and often
project work according rotated. Students
to interest and degree of belonged to one of six
complexity. All work was home groups, gathering
available online from the at the beginning and end
start of the term of each day, but the
community functioned
as a single unit divided
according to learning
need during the day
This group was a mix of
in two-week cycles, with Year 5 & 6 students of
at least two opportunities both genders,
to demonstrate mastery. experiencing difficulty
Those who did, could with the concept of 24-
select from a mix of hour time. The teacher
independent and works with them,
collaborative extension assigning roles and
tasks. Those who did drawing on personal
not, worked in groups experience in order to
receiving explicit explain how to calculate
teaching and practice 24-hour time

more holistic accounts of learning and lays the groundwork for connecting the prop-
erties and spatial configurations of materials to emergent learning activity. One could
start with any one of the nine cells in this three-by-three grid, but to illustrate our
point we will start with the micro-set. This is the point at which the teacher captures

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

1132 L. Carvalho and P. Yeoman

her students’ attention and works towards understanding by annotating the face of
the clock with a whiteboard marker. The crux of this moment is when the teacher
combines narration with annotation using her voice, her hand, the marker and the
analogue clock face (micro-set). However, the corresponding details of the tight-knit
group formed around her—with bated breath and laser focus—as she ‘defaces’ the
clock (micro-social), and the realisation that these students have come to the end of a
two-week cycle and are still struggling with the concept (micro-epistemic), complete
the picture.
The presence of the analogue clock and whiteboard markers was not remarkable.
What was remarkable, was the interplay between the elements as this moment played
out. Given the group this teacher was responsible for (micro-social), she was able to
reframe an abstract mathematical task (micro-epistemic) using a concrete analogue
representation (micro-set). These actions were supported by access to empty space
for just-in-time workshops (meso-set) and a suite of competency-based independent
online tasks (meso-epistemic) that freed teachers to work with groups of students as
and when they needed assistance (meso-social). All of this was supported by corre-
spondence at the macro level in terms of set design (mobile, flexible learning environ-
ment), epistemic design (research-based practice in teams driven by interest) and
social design (a distributed leadership style that valued innovation).
This episode illustrates correspondence across dimensions of design and scale
levels, but it is not difficult to anticipate where the sticking points might be on another
day in this space, or in an altogether different space. Something as simple as not being
able to find a working whiteboard marker, or something a little more complicated—
such as different social norms governing the use of writable surfaces, could stifle the
emergence of this quality of learning activity. But it is not only access and availability,
or use value, that is illustrated here, because there is something fundamentally mate-
rial at play in this example. Had this particular clock face been dark rather than white,
digital rather than analogue, or permanently fixed to the wall, this critical moment of
learning activity would not have emerged. In exploring this vignette using the ACAD
wireframe, we have begun the task of connecting elements of design to emergent
learning activity. What the matrix structure is less able to accommodate is the notions
of time and the complex skill set required to navigate conjunctural moments in which
repair work is necessary to restore or establish a valued quality of learning activity.
For this, we will return to Hodder’s (2012, p. 217) theory of entanglement:
Entanglement + fittingness + conjunctural event ? problem ? fixing ? selection
? E0 (total entanglement)

Table 3 is helpful in stepping us through the sequential emergence of a problem

and its resolution based on what is to hand. Finally, the tanglegram (Figure 3) brings
it all together by mapping the dynamic flows of humans and things and their contin-
gent dependences, in a manner that demonstrates the value of understanding entan-
glement when designing for learning.
Designing for learning involves complex multi-layered considerations about the
nature of innovative learning spaces and their relations to emergent learning activity.
The ACAD framework, ACAD wireframe and the theory of entanglement offer ana-
lytical tools to help educators consider this multi-layered complexity and how various

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

 Framing learning entanglement in innovative learning spaces 1133

Table 3. Representing sequential emergence

Current The sum of all dependences between humans (H) and things (T) in their
entanglement many forms (HT, TT, TH, HH). Students rely on computers, pens,
learning resources, a learning management system and access to shared
learning space; writable surfaces need writable pens and learning
management systems are useless without power and WiFi; computers rely
on humans to maintain the power and plug them in to charge, and learning
management systems are useless without carefully designed tasks; learners
learn through knowledge-oriented design by teachers on their own and in
the company of others
Fittingness In this learning environment, progress through a unit of work was based on
mastery and not the transmission of information in discrete time and place-
based units of instruction. Repeating forms of instruction that had failed to
produce insight was avoided in favour of exploring creative ways to support
learners
Conjunctural event The learning community was reaching the end of a two-week cycle in
numeracy. Most students had mastered the concepts covered and were
working on independent extension tasks. The final topic test had been sat
and this vignette describes one teacher working with a group of students
who were still struggling with the concept of 24-hour time. She has clearly
planned an activity using bodies in space to make the concept less abstract
and engage them in an informal social discussion about the types of things
they do at different times of the day
Problem There are not 24 bodies. The teacher tries to use a representative sample,
and they stand in pairs in a straight line, which makes the representation
linear and not circular, which bothers them. The activity devolves into
social chit-chat about the variation in bed times
Fixing She gathers them together on the open central carpet to refocus, and is
clearly thinking about fetching something from her Caddie (mobile teacher
storage), but is reluctant to make her way there because another teacher is
standing alongside it, talking to a student who is visibly upset
Selection Searching through what is to hand, what is appropriate and what will help
her explain the concept to her students—she notices the analogue clock on
the wall. She is free to move towards it, remove it from the wall and select a
semi-permanent marker to annotate it
Altered total Having resolved the conceptual dissonance, the teacher does not continue to
entanglement try different strategies, but alters the learning activity to give her students
time to work on their own around the clock and return to the group to link
their workings to the clock face. As the lesson draws to an end, the clock is
left face up for the benefit of those who walk past. It is left there for a day or
two and is talked about in passing, before being cleaned and put back on
the wall. At no point was this use of the clock interpreted as vandalism and
its appropriate use in the service of learning added just one more writable
surface to the many already employed in learning in this space

elements come together when designing for learning. These analytical tools assist
educational designers in tracing the interplay between elements across a number of
dimensions (set, epistemic, social), as they consider design choices across scale levels
(macro, meso, micro), helping them to anticipate problems or explore unintended
consequences with respect to the learning whole, illuminating how alterations in the
designed environment can be said to shape emergent learning activity.

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

1134 L. Carvalho and P. Yeoman

Figure 3. Representing entanglement [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Conclusion
Fenwick et al. (2011) note that sociomaterial studies of education challenge the cen-
trality of human processes in learning, in favour of the materiality of learning. This
claim, they say, does not come at the expense of the personal but seeks to treat the
material and the human symmetrically in order to explain how entities, knowledge,
other actors and relations of mediation and activity converge in learning. As such,
sociomaterial studies of learning explore relations between entities through which
activity occurs, rather than the individual entities themselves. In doing so, they trace
the ever-shifting web of interaction that holds these processes together, all the while
shaping their properties and interactions without relegating the environment to an
inert backdrop to the main act of life or, in this case, education. What becomes clear,
through the lens of a sociomaterial approach, is that increased connectivity and par-
ticipation in networked structures gives rise to an increased dependence, which drives
the need to understand the relations between constituent parts. However, in this arti-
cle we have argued that if all we do is explore the relations between constituent parts,
we run the risk of failing to explain how the parts relate to the whole and how these
parts can be said to support valued learning activity. What is more, in returning to our
depiction of learning as emergent, the challenge lies in understanding how the proper-
ties and spatial configuration of materials can be said to give rise to emergent learning
activity.

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

 Framing learning entanglement in innovative learning spaces 1135

In response, we have presented a set of conceptual and analytical tools capable of

supporting those called on to participate in the (re)design of innovative learning envi-
ronments in ways that reflect shared epistemologies of learning and accommodate
increasing levels of complexity and diversity. Key aspects of design for learning
include the careful alignment of theory and practice, and correspondence across
dimensions of design (set, social and epistemic) and scale levels (macro, meso and
micro). We have demonstrated the practical application of our analytical approach
and suggest that it is particularly helpful for educational designers working in hetero-
geneous teams, because it is both deeply theoretical and eminently practical. That is,
it offers well-theorised representations that facilitate discussions about part–whole
relationships and connect properties of materials with desired qualities of learning
activity. Our more recent research examines the practical application of these ideas
through the development and evaluation of additional tools (ACAD cards) to support
the work of educational design teams (Carvalho & Yeoman, 2017, 2019, forthcom-
ing). Taken together, the ACAD cards, ACAD wireframe and various visual and
descriptive artefacts are being used in workshops in Australia and New Zealand. We
are currently collecting evidence and analysing how our ‘Toolkit for Action’ supports
the work of educational designers through mediated conversations about what it
means to design for learning.

Acknowledgements
Foundational work for this article was carried out by both authors under the guidance
of Professor Peter Goodyear and with the generous support of the Australian
Research Council (ARC) Laureate Fellowship (FL100100203). In addition, Pippa
Yeoman’s contributions to writing this article were supported by the ARC Discovery
Grant (DP150104163).

References
Alexander, C. (2002) The nature of order: An essay on the art of building and the nature of the Universe,
book one the phenomenon of life (Berkeley, CA, The Center for Environmental Structure).
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I. & Angel, S. (1977) A
pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
Beetham, H. & Sharpe, R. (Eds) (2013) Rethinking pedagogy for the digital age: Designing for 21st cen-
tury learning (2nd edn) (New York, Routledge).
Bernstein, B. (2000) Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (revised edition)
(Oxford, Rowman & Littlefield).
Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Loughlin, J., O’Mara, J. & Aranda, G. (2011) Research into the connec-
tion between built learning spaces and student outcomes (Melbourne, Education Policy and
Research Division, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development). Available
online at: http://www.education.vic.gov.au (accessed 18 March 2018).
Cardellino, P., Araneda, C. & Alvarado, R. G. (2017) Classroom environments: An experiential
analysis of the pupil–teacher visual interaction in Uruguay, Learning Environment Research, 20,
417–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-017-9236-y
Carvalho, L. & Goodyear, P. (Eds) (2014) The architecture of productive learning networks (New York,
Routledge).
Carvalho, L. & Yeoman, P. (2017) A toolkit for action: Translating theory into practice, in: G. Bis-
was, L. -H. Wong, T. Hirashima, W. Chen (Eds) Proceedings of the 25th International Conference
on Computers in Education (New Zealand, Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education).

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

1136 L. Carvalho and P. Yeoman

Carvalho, L. & Yeoman, P. (2019, forthcoming) Learning to teach in innovative spaces: A toolkit for
action (New York, Routledge).
Clark, A. (2011) Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action and cognitive extension (Oxford, Oxford
University Press).
Damsßa, C. I., Kirschner, P. A., Andriessen, J. E., Erkens, G. & Sins, P. H. (2010) Shared epistemic
agency: An empirical study of an emergent construct, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2),
143–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508401003708381
Devall, B. & Sessions, G. (1985) Deep ecology (Salt Lake City, UT, Gibbs Smith).
Fenwick, T., Edwards, R. & Sawchuk, P. (2011) Emerging approaches to educational research
(Oxford, Routledge).
Gatt, C. & Ingold, T. (2013) From description to correspondence: Anthropology in real time, in:
W. Gunn, T. Otto & R. Charlotte-Smith (Eds) Design anthropology: Theory and practice (Lon-
don, Bloomsbury).
Gislason, N. (2009) Mapping school design: A qualitative study of the relations among facilities
design, curriculum delivery, and school climate, The Journal of Educational Research, 40(4), 17–
33.
Goodyear, P. (1999) Pedagogical frameworks and action research in open and distance learning,
European Journal of Open and Distance Learning, http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/
1999/goodyear/index.html
Goodyear, P. & Carvalho, L. (2014) Framing the analysis of learning network architectures, in: L.
Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds) The architecture of productive learning networks (New York, Rout-
ledge).
Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V. & McConnell, D. (2004) Advances in research on networked
learning (Dordrecht, Springer).
Goodyear, P., De Laat, M. & Lally, V. (2006) Using pattern languages to mediate theory–praxis
conversations in design for networked learning, Research in Learning Technology, 14(3), 211–
223. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687760600836977
Hodder, I. (2012) Entangled: An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things (Chich-
ester, Wiley-Blackwell). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118241912
Hodder, I. (2014) The entanglements of humans and things: A long-term view, New Literary His-
tory, 45(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2014.0005
Hutchins, E. (1995) Cognition in the wild (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press).
Illeris, K. (Ed.) (2009) Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists—in their own words (New
York, Routledge).
Ingold, T. (2011) Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description (Oxford, Routledge).
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203818336
Ingold, T. (2012) Toward an ecology of materials, Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 427–442.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145920
Ingold, T. (2013) Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture (Oxford, Routledge).
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203559055
Kirsh, D. (2013) Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design, ACM Transac-
tions on Computer–Human Interaction, 20(1), 3:1–3:20.
Knorr Cetina, K. (1999) Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge (Cambridge, MA, Har-
vard University Press).
Latour, B. (1988) Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society (Cambridge,
MA, Harvard University Press).
Latour, B. (2007) Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor–network theory (Oxford, Oxford
University Press).
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (Cambridge, Cam-
bridge University Press). https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511815355
Law, J. (2002) Aircraft stories: Decentering the object in technoscience (Durham, Duke University
Press). https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822383543
Law, J. & Hassard, J. (1999) Actor network theory and after (Oxford, Blackwell).

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

 Framing learning entanglement in innovative learning spaces 1137

Leiringer, R. & Cardellino, P. (2011) Schools for the twenty-first century: School design and educa-
tional transformation, British Educational Research Journal, 37(6), 915–934. https://doi.org/10.
1080/01411926.2010.508512
Markauskaite, L. & Goodyear, P. (2017) Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation,
knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge (Netherlands, Springer). https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-94-007-4369-4
Morson, S. (2014) Using wireframes to design your app, in: S. Morson (Ed.) Learn design for iOS
development (Berkeley, CA, Apress). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4302-6365-4
Nordquist, J. & Laing, A. (2015) Designing spaces for the networked learning landscape, Medical
Teacher, 37(4), 337–343. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2014.1001349
Norman, D. A. (1993) Cognition in the head and in the world: An introduction to the special issue
on situated action, Cognitive Science, 17(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1701_1
OECD. (2013) Innovative learning environments (Paris, OECD Publishing).
Oliver, M. (2013) Learning technology: Theorising the tools we study, British Journal of Educational
Technology, 44(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01283.x
Owens, R. G. & Valesky, T. C. (2007) Organizational behavior in education: Adaptive leadership and
school reform (9th edn) (Toronto, Pearson Education).
Radcliffe, D. (2009) A pedagogy–space–technology (PST) framework for designing and evaluating
learning places, in: D. Radcliffe, H. Wilson, D. Powell & B. Tibbetts (Eds) Designing next gener-
ation spaces of learning: Collaboration at the pedagogy–space–technology nexus (Brisbane, University
of Queensland).
Roth, R., Hart, D., Mead, R. & Quinn, C. (2016) Wireframing for interactive & web-based map-
ping: Designing the NOAA lake level viewer, Cartography and Geographic Information Science,
44(4), 1–20.
S€alj€
o, R. (2009) Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies,
social memory and the performative nature of learning, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
26, 53–64.
Scott, C. (2015) The futures of learning 3: What king of pedagogies for the 21st century?, in: Educa-
tion research and foresight working papers (Paris, United Nations Cultural Organization).
Sewlyn, N. (2014) Distrusting educational technology. Critical questions for changing times (New York,
Routledge).
Singh, A. & Hassan, M. (2017) In pursuit of smart learning environments for the 21st century, Current
and critical issues in curriculum, learning and assessment (Paris, UNESCO International Bureau of
Education).
Sørensen, E. (2009) The materiality of learning: Technology and knowledge in educational practice
(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511576362
Thomas, D. & Brown, J. S. (2011) A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of
constant change (Lexington, MA, CreateSpace).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).
Wenger, E. (1999) Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity (Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press).
Wilson, H. (2009) The process of creating learning space, in: D. Radcliffe, H. Wilson, D. Powell &
B. Tibbetts (Eds) Designing next generation spaces of learning: Collaboration at the pedagogy–space–
technology nexus (Brisbane, University of Queensland).
Woolner, P. (2010) The design of learning spaces (London, Continuum).
Woolner, P., Thomas, U. & Tiplady, L. (2018) Structural change from physical foundations: The
role of the environment in enacting school change, Journal of Educational Change, 19(2), 223–
242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-018-9317-4
Yeoman, P. (2015) Habits & habitats: An ethnography of learning entanglement (Sydney, The Univer-
sity of Sydney). Available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/13982 (accessed 20 September
2018)
Yeoman, P. (2018) The material correspondence of learning, in: R. A. Ellis & P. Goodyear (Eds)
Spaces of teaching and learning: Integrating perspectives on research and practice (Dordrecht,
Springer).

© 2018 British Educational Research Association